orchestrating learning with ims ld
TRANSCRIPT
Orchestrating Learning using Adaptive Educational Designs in IMS Learning Design
Marion R. Gruber, Christian Glahn, Marcus Specht, & Rob KoperCELSTEC, Open University of the Netherlands
IMS Learning Design (IMS LD)
• Specification providing a formal syntax for expressing educational designs
• IMS approved in 2003
• 3 Complexity Levels – Level A – Basic process and content– Level B – Interactivity– Level C – Event based processes
Personalisation & Adaptation
2 perspectives on personalisation
• Processes are tailored towards the individuals
• Individuals take responsibility and controlon processes
Personalisation & Adaptation
2 perspectives on personalisation
• Processes are tailored towards the individuals
• Individuals take responsibility and controlon processes
Research Question
How to model personalisationin educational designs
using IMS Learning Design?
Previous work on Adaptation with IMS LD
• Personalisation using “properties” and “conditions” (Paramythis & Loisl-Reisinger; Specht & Burgos)
• Content adaptation (Berlanga & Garcia)
• Lifecycle of adaptive courses (van Roosmalen et al.)
Approaches externalise parts of the educational design to other tools
Previous work on Adaptation with IMS LD
• Personalisation using “properties” and “conditions” (Paramythis & Loisl-Reisinger; Specht & Burgos)
• Content adaptation (Berlanga & Garcia)
• Lifecycle of adaptive courses (van Roosmalen et al.)
Approaches externalise parts of the educational design to other tools
Adds implicit constraints
Research Question (again)
How to model personalisationin educational designs
using IMS Learning Design?
We need to understand1.Semantics of IMS LD 2.Underpinning concepts of IMS LD
and educational design
MODELLING EDUCATIONAL PROCESSES
AND NOT PROGRAMMING INTERACTIVE SYSTEMS
Remenber
Orchestrating Learning & Educational Design
• Learning activities
• Learning environment
• Social planes
• Rules and directives
Elements of Orchestrating Learning• Learning activities
• Learning environment
• Social planes
• Rules and directives
• Learning-activity• Support-activity
• Environment
• Role-part (learner/ staff)• Personal-property (b) • Role-property (b) • Property (b)
• Activity-structure• Play• Act • Condition (b)• Notification (c)
Personalisation
• Responsibility is based on perceived control
• Tailoring does not guarantee more control
• Distribution of control is part of the educational design
Elements of Personalisation
• Choice• Sequence
• Arrangement• Availability• Interaction
Elements of Personalisation
• Choice• Sequence
• Arrangement• Availability• Interaction
IMS LD Level A
IMS LD Level B
IMS LD LevelCIMS LD Level C
EXPRESS EDUCATIONAL IDEAS
Designing for Orchestrating and Personalising Learning
Modern Architecture: Skyscrapers and Residential Homes
• Using OER provided by the MACE Projects– Frank L. Wright– Frank O. Gehry– Mies van der Rohe
• Learn about skyscrapers• Learn about residential homes• Learn about the architects
Modern Architecture: Skyscrapers and Residential Homes – MACE Resources
• Static resources– Selection of MACE resources
• Dynamic Resources– Provided by the MACE Search to explore
resources
• Interactive Services (widgets) – Additional services
Modelling Choice and Sequence (IMS LD Level A)
• Using “play” semantics to choose between approaches
• Using “activity-structures” to choose between pathways through a course
Modelling Choice and Sequence (IMS LD Level A)
Modelling Arrangement and Availability(IMS LD Level B)
• Note-taking controls the the learning path– Using “conditions” and “properties” for
arranging personal learning paths • Using “show” and “hide” for controlling the
access to resources and services• “conditions” guide the learners based on the
concepts they have worked on
Learning activity
Modelling Arrangement and Availability(IMS LD Level B)
Learning activity
Architecture conceptArchitect
Learning activity
Learning activityLearning activity
Learner note
Modelling Arrangement and Availability(IMS LD Level B)
Modelling Arrangement and Availability(IMS LD Level B)
Gaps and Challenges
• Level A activity-structures do not seamlessly integrate with Level B– Activity-structures rely on a restricted
process model (e.g. it forbids loops)• Explicit grouping is limited• Environments cannot get used to activate
learning activities• Interactive contents and services are difficult
to integrate
Conclusions• Abstraction of educational processes from
interaction is critical
• Simple personalisation can get modelled using IMS LD Level A
• For more complex personalisation IMS LD Level B provides sufficient semantics
• Not all simple things can be done, simply
Future Activities
• IMS LD Level C
• Extending towards new educational scenarios– Mobile Learning – Learning with tangibles– Web2.0 integration
• Limitation of Expressiveness of IMS LD
References
• http://learningdesigns.blogspot.com
• http://hdl.handle.net/1820/2550 (Level A example)
• http://hdl.handle.net/1820/2551 (Level B example)